Corona virus data analysis. A fascinating read.

borolad259 said:
This is brilliant. Thanks. This is the best explanation that I have seen, from one of the world's most eminent epidemiologists. Spanishman, I hope you watch this.
Click to expand...
I have watched it. I stand by the need for lock downs in countries other than Sweden. Due to the different circumstances.

His view does not take into account the lack of facilities, equipment and personnel in some countries. Plus the lack of being able to ramp up provision of facilities, equipment and personnel quickly enough. This is where the UK, Spain and others have been caught out.

It is the lack of adequate planning for a pandemic that countries had been warned about years ago that is the problem.

Sweden will probably not reach or exceed hospital capacity at any point in their process. The UK and Spain appear to have done so. I am not sure about Italy as I have no real knowledge of what has been happening there in the past.

He seems very blase about additional unnecessary deaths.
 
The UK at no point has exceeded hospital capacity.

'he seems very blasé about additional unnecessary deaths' - no he seems like one of the most senior scientists in the world most qualified to talk about the subject.

On a different note, why do none of these incredibly highly qualified individuals not get mentioned in the guardian? It's such a trustworthy paper , why wouldn't they report what one of the most senior epidemiologists' in the world has to say?
 
Alvez_48 said:
The UK at no point has exceeded hospital capacity.

'he seems very blasé about additional unnecessary deaths' - no he seems like one of the most senior scientists in the world most qualified to talk about the subject.

On a different note, why do none of these incredibly highly qualified individuals not get mentioned in the guardian? It's such a trustworthy paper , why wouldn't they report what one of the most senior epidemiologists' in the world has to say?
Click to expand...
I am going to dip out of this conversation soon. As I have other things to do. Just a couple of points before I go.

1. Hospital capacity has been protected by letting thousands of people die in care homes or elsewhere. When in normal circumstances at least some of them could have had treatment.

2. The big question is how many additional unnecessary deaths are "acceptable"?
 
spanishman said:
I have watched it. I stand by the need for lock downs in countries other than Sweden. Due to the different circumstances.

His view does not take into account the lack of facilities, equipment and personnel in some countries. Plus the lack of being able to ramp up provision of facilities, equipment and personnel quickly enough. This is where the UK, Spain and others have been caught out.

It is the lack of adequate planning for a pandemic that countries had been warned about years ago that is the problem.

Sweden will probably not reach or exceed hospital capacity at any point in their process. The UK and Spain appear to have done so. I am not sure about Italy as I have no real knowledge of what has been happening there in the past.

He seems very blase about additional unnecessary deaths.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Italy's and Spain's health services were better equipped (ICU beds per capita and spending per capita) than Sweden.

To be clear, he doesn't advocate doing nothing. On the contrary ... and he does say that slowing down the rate of transmission is essential to allow the hospitals to cope. He is just saying that closing all schools and locking people in their homes is not the best answer.

The most interesting point for me is his conviction that much of society has already had the new coronavirus without being aware. That would seem to be born out by the evidence from testing in China, Iceland and also on ships. I hope he is right because that will mean that Spain can come gently out of lockdown without a humongous second wave.
 
borolad259 said:
As I understand it, Italy's and Spain's health services were better equipped (ICU beds per capita and spending per capita) than Sweden.

To be clear, he doesn't advocate doing nothing. On the contrary ... and he does say that slowing down the rate of transmission is essential to allow the hospitals to cope. He is just saying that closing all schools and locking people in their homes is not the best answer.

The most interesting point for me is his conviction that much of society has already had the new coronavirus without being aware. That would seem to be born out by the evidence from testing in China, Iceland and also on ships. I hope he is right because that will mean that Spain can come gently out of lockdown without a humongous second wave.
Click to expand...
Did you see the article I quoted about facilities in 2012? Maybe I quoted it on this thread or another one (I got in to a discussion with Lefty about it). I will dig it out again when I have a bit of time.

I agree with him that in the long term it is not the right answer. However if it reduces the overall total of deaths per country then I feel it will have been worthwhile. I feel that this is not a one size fits all situation.

What happens next is going to be interesting. I am not a natural optimist. So I have a feeling all will not be well. I feel that virtually all countries will have a high count of unnecessary additional deaths one way or other.
It is just how different countries try to manage that terrible situation.

Now back to publishing the quiz results for today.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Dood to your point I completely agree that the government has failed epically with PPE for our healthcare workers, it still doesn't change the fact that the evidence is becoming clearer that the lockdown hasn't done anything to change the spread. Like you say I may be wrong and I am 100% complying with government directives.
Click to expand...
From my personal point of view, as I have said on another thread, the lockdown and my adherence to it will have done far more to prevent the deaths of the two very much at risk people in my household than not having a lockdown. I can't say any more than that and I am sure that I am not unique in my own circumstances.
I have read all of the very persuasive material posted on this thread and it hasn't changed my opinion one bit as no matter how much I try and process it, I simply can't countenance the risks personally.
 
Despite all the experts we have in this country none seem to have much clue how many people had had it, no one with certainty can say what the chances are of catching it again or if it is mutating. We can't even record the deaths properly as the Daily Telegraph claims 7,500 CV 19 deaths in care homes, but the official figure for virus death in care homes is only around 1,000.

33% tested have it, but of course that reflects the fact that most tested are showing some signs.

I would be interested to know the UK figures for women in hospital to give birth over the 24 days, because surely the NHS are testing them 100%.
 
Redwurzel said:
Despite all the experts we have in this country none seem to have much clue how many people had had it, no one with certainty can say what the chances are of catching it again or if it is mutating. We can't even record the deaths properly as the Daily Telegraph claims 7,500 CV 19 deaths in care homes, but the official figure for virus death in care homes is only around 1,000.

33% tested have it, but of course that reflects the fact that most tested are showing some signs.

I would be interested to know the UK figures for women in hospital to give birth over the 24 days, because surely the NHS are testing them 100%.
Click to expand...
It was one in eight in one New York hospital red. Obviously not an exhaustive indicator, but interesting none the less.
 
borolad259 said:
As I understand it, Italy's and Spain's health services were better equipped (ICU beds per capita and spending per capita) than Sweden.

To be clear, he doesn't advocate doing nothing. On the contrary ... and he does say that slowing down the rate of transmission is essential to allow the hospitals to cope. He is just saying that closing all schools and locking people in their homes is not the best answer.

The most interesting point for me is his conviction that much of society has already had the new coronavirus without being aware. That would seem to be born out by the evidence from testing in China, Iceland and also on ships. I hope he is right because that will mean that Spain can come gently out of lockdown without a humongous second wave.
Click to expand...
Does it? The WHO have said, previously having covid19 doesn’t mean immunity. They don’t have any evidence as yet.
 
nowthen said:
Does it? The WHO have said, previously having covid19 doesn’t mean immunity. They don’t have any evidence as yet.
Click to expand...

They don't have any evidence that it doesn't either. There's no reason to presume this doesn't follow the usual rules when it comes to immunity.

The people who have restested as positive fall within the margin of error for false negatives ie it's what you'd expect to see given the accuracy of the tests. We need much better data to be able to suggest that having the virus and overcoming it does not provide immunity in the vast majority of cases.
 
I wouldn't believe a single word that comes out of the WHO's mouth. Infact I don't think they've said anything notable on about 3 months now. It's all stuff we either already know or pure speculation.
 
So far the virus has behaved in very much the same way as the other corona viruses. There's no reason to suppose it will be any different. We don't have immunity to the common cold but, because we've mostly been exposed to it that coronavirus, it doesn't kill very many people. We develop resistance, not immunity.
 
borolad259 said:
So far the virus has behaved in very much the same way as the other corona viruses. There's no reason to suppose it will be any different. We don't have immunity to the common cold but, because we've mostly been exposed to it that coronavirus, it doesn't kill very many people. We develop resistance, not immunity.
Click to expand...
There are 3 types of known virus that cause colds. Rhinovirus, coronavirus and RSV / parainfluenza. Coronavirus causes about 20% of colds. About 20%-30% of colds are caused by "unknown" bugs.

There are 7 known coronaviruses that affect humans:
  1. 229E (alpha coronavirus)
  2. NL63 (alpha coronavirus)
  3. OC43 (beta coronavirus)
  4. HKU1 (beta coronavirus)
  5. ERS-CoV (the beta coronavirus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, or MERS)
  6. SARS-CoV (the beta coronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS)
  7. SARS-CoV-2 (the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19)
People around the world commonly get infected with human coronaviruses 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1.

Sometimes coronaviruses that infect animals can evolve and make people sick and become a new human coronavirus. Three recent examples of this are 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV

There is no such thing as "behaving in the same way" with a novel coronavirus.

CDC coronaviruses
 
Last edited:
borolad259 said:
I've just been informed by my Swedish scientist pal that Johan Giesecke, as well as being the chief architect of the Swedish response to the pandemic, is a former head of the ECDC.
Click to expand...
He's seems to have very sound credentials. What I don't understand about his approach is that whilst he believes our lockdown is wrong and we should have gone for herd immunity, he's pleased that the Swedes are acting as if there is a lockdown with no threats of fines.
 
bear66 said:
He's seems to have very sound credentials. What I don't understand about his approach is that whilst he believes our lockdown is wrong and we should have gone for herd immunity, he's pleased that the Swedes are acting as if there is a lockdown with no threats of fines.
Click to expand...

He doesn't advocate herd immunity (he means resistance ... there is no distinction between the two words in Swedish) as a goal, it's just a bi-product. To a large extent it's political ... in that our response has been political, rather than evidence based (or at least that the evidence driving our response ... the Imperial College model ... is flawed). He explains it better than me though ... the difference is nuanced, but their strategy is "we can identify the most vulnerable, so we concentrate on trying to protect them, whilst asking people to observe social distancing". Locking people in their homes is unustainable in the long term, and you need a long term strategy. As he says in the interview, we can't just come out of lockdown, we have to have a managed return to normality. Anyway, he explains it way better than I can.
 
borolad259 said:
As he says in the interview, we can't just come out of lockdown, we have to have a managed return to normality
Click to expand...

The view that we must maintain social distancing following lockdown is great in places where people are not packed like sardines on public transport - but when they are, what then? For me a post lockdown strategy has to answer a great many more questions.

Are we advocating masks per some USA states when you go into public places - is that for everyone or just the most vulnerable? Should business be mandated a WFH wherever possible policy for the foreseeable future until either a vaccine is available or the infection rates drop below a certain threshold? How is any of this policed/managed?

We must at some point return to some kind of new normality but a headlong rush looks a recipe for more of the same in a second wave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top